1. In their explanations of the dogmatic fact established upon the acceptance of a newly elected Pope, Billot, Hunter, Ott et al are clear that the acceptance results in the establishment of the dogmatic fact. The reasons provided for this are more diverse (rule of faith, constitution/indefectibility of the Church etc).

As I noted earlier in placing the 'why it is so' ahead of the 'what is so' they have inverted the principle. While Billot cites 'rule of faith' - which requires Billot's definition to reach a complete understanding of the thesis - Ott and Hunter cite the constitution of the Church.

It is said clearly that they 'Church' cannot be wrong when it say who is the Pope. Whether or not they 'listen' to the Pope is a subordinate element.

2. As far as my 'labouring under another error': First he is still operating on the inversion of Billot's explanation of the dogmatic fact. That is plain and simple. Even a cursory glance at this article on 'rule of faith' is sufficient to undermine JohnL's thesis: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766b.htm

I would like to know if anyone has ever plumbed the depth of what Cardinal Billot and theologian's of his era regarded as a 'rule of faith'?

3. Concerning the 'if we consider ...' aside from the errors concerning what constitutes unity of worship etc, the thesis presented is inconsistent with the indefectibility and what constitutes the extents of the infallibility of the Church in her discipline.

4. With regards to the three theses (which are inaccurate but I don't have the time to go into it):

The third is heretical as it denies the indefectibility of the Church.The second is a distortion of the Church teaching on the matter concerning the infallibility. The first is an oversimplification combined with a generalization.

I affirm that:

a. Billot, Hunter, Ott, et al state categorically that the acceptance of the newly elected Pope by the Bishops results in the establishment of an infallible dogmatic fact that the man elected IS the Pope.b. The rationale for why this dogmatic fact is established is reference to the Pope as a 'rule of faith' (Billot) (see Cath. Enc article) and the indefectibility of the Church (Hunter, Ott et al)

I contest that:a. Subordinate rationale can be placed over the superior principle.b. Claiming that Billot overrides Hunter,Ott et al is logically valid.

I think the question that Sedevacantists need to answer is: What would they have to change/do if their theory is wrong. That would be helpful in assessing the reason for their refusal to accept the establishment of the dogmatic fact that the last six Popes were all lawfully and validly elected Vicars of Christ (albeit bad in many senses).

P^3

_________________"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.

Fri Aug 22, 2014 3:52 am

Michael Wilson

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:53 amPosts: 63Location: St. Marys, Kansas

Re: On "Schism"

My own observation of tradical's reply is the following:The establishing of a "dogmatic fact" of such a person being the Pope, based on the infallibility of all the bishops in recognizing such a man as Pope, would lead to a circular argument; to whit: the bishops united to the Pope are infallible in establishing a dogmatic fact.the bishops have accepted Francis (or Paul VI, or J.P. II); as Pope.therefore the bishops united with the Pope have are infallible in establishing the dogmatic fact that Francis (and Co.); is indeed the Pope.Am I right or am I way off?I would add, that the bishops even all of them together are not infallible, without the Pope.

_________________"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.

Fri Aug 22, 2014 4:01 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: On "Schism"

Michael Wilson wrote:

My own observation of tradical's reply is the following:The establishing of a "dogmatic fact" of such a person being the Pope, based on the infallibility of all the bishops in recognizing such a man as Pope, would lead to a circular argument; to whit: the bishops united to the Pope are infallible in establishing a dogmatic fact.the bishops have accepted Francis (or Paul VI, or J.P. II); as Pope.therefore the bishops united with the Pope have are infallible in establishing the dogmatic fact that Francis (and Co.); is indeed the Pope.Am I right or am I way off?I would add, that the bishops even all of them together are not infallible, without the Pope.

Exactly, Mike. I've made the same point before. The thesis that tradical and others take from Ott and Hunter is that the bishops, without the pope, are infallible in a sole judgement - that a newly elected pope is truly pope. This is a radical novelty in the realm of infallibility, unheard of until now. The bishops, united with the pope, are infallible, and not otherwise.

The argument must be something else - that is, the root of the argument, the thing that leads to the conclusion, must be something other than the infallibility of the magisterium. Billot says it is the fact that the entire Church accepts what the pope teaches, so that if it were possible for the Church to be mistaken about who the pope is, the faithful could be misled. Tradical and his type, as JS Daly has pointed out, simply deny the major premise - they cheerfully deny that anybody needs to believe what the pope teaches, merely because he teaches it, unless once or twice per century he solemnises a particular doctrine (i.e. solemnly defines it). THEN, the faithful must believe what the pope teaches, on his authority as pope, but not otherwise. Nor am I exaggerating their position. Show me a traditionalist who expends any effort trying to accept what Bergoglio teaches and I'll show you a "Conservative." Actually, tradical's theory is a tendentious and false representation of what he and all other traditionalists do. They present it as "Believe the pope unless he contradicts tradtion," but in fact that first half of the proposition is never reduced to act. We all habitually ignore Bergoglio, as he deserves: we say, because he isn't pope, and tradical denies the fact, and claims that traditionalists don't habitually ignore Bergoglio. Well, on that score I'm more than happy to let the public judge which of us is telling the truth.

As for the rest of tradical's post, he'll need to unfold his reasoning a bit more than he has in order to put his case. I can't understand most of what he has written, I'm afraid. He says that he doesn't have time to go into it, well if he isn't taking it seriously then I have no problem with that - just as long as everybody is clear that only one side takes these matters seriously.

_________________In Christ our King.

Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:42 am

Michael Wilson

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:53 amPosts: 63Location: St. Marys, Kansas

Re: On "Schism"

John, here is a pretty good post by "Stranger" on S.D. Rebutting "tradical's" position

Quote:

tradical quotes Hunter as proof of the doctrine that the unanimous acceptance of a Pope Elect by the Bishops creates a dogmatic fact, i.e. makes the legitimacy of his election infallibly true. For this he only quotes Hunter, as Billot and others merely speak of the universal and pacifical acceptance of the whole Universal Church, not merely the bishops.

So let's take a closer look at what Hunter is saying:

Quote

First, then, the Church is infallible when she declares what person holds the office of Pope ; for if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope; but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops (n. 208) ; if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise (St. Matt, xxviii. 20; and n. 199, II.) would be falsified, which is impossible./QUOTE

1. "if the person of the Pope were uncertain, it would be uncertain what Bishops were in communion with the Pope",- Far from impossible, this situation already happened during the Western Schism, and the uncertainty lasted for 40 years. Therefore, it is entirely possible that it could be happening now.

2. "but according to the Catholic faith, as will be proved hereafter, communion with the Pope is a condition for the exercise of the function of teaching by the body of Bishops"- this presupposes that there is a Pope, but what happened during every period of sede vacante, or, what happened during the four decades of the Western Schism? Did the bishops of the world (the Teaching Church) temporarily lose the ability to teach? To say such a thing would not only be ridiculous but also at least an error because it would mean that the Constitution of the Church has changed from the one divinely instituted by Christ, which is impossible.

3. "if then the uncertainty could not be cleared up, the power of teaching could not be exercised, and Christ's promise would be falsified, which is impossible"- But during the Western Schism the uncertainty was not resolved for 40 years, and yet obviously the Teaching Church still exercised the power of teaching, and Christ's promise did not fail. So a similar situation is possible today as well. What is certain is that one day it will be resolved.

Quote

...but it is enough to say that if the Bishops agree in recognizing a certain man as Pope, they are certainly right, for otherwise the body of the Bishops would be separated from their head, and the Divine constitution of the Church would be ruined./QUOTE

This presupposes the existence of a true Pope, who is the head mentioned above, so that if the entire body of bishops were to adhere to an antipope while a true pope was alive they would be separated from their head. But if we are in a period of vacancy then there is no pope and no head of the body of bishops, so if the body of bishops were to unknowingly recognize an antipope they would merely make an error of fact and would not be separated from their head, since they would not have a head during that period.

If we consider all of this, then we can see that the doctrine expressed in Cum ex Apostolatus - that the election of a heretic would be invalid even if accepted by every single cardinal, agrees perfectly with the dogmatic fact that the pacific and universal adherence of the whole Church (not merely the bishops) to a Pontiff makes his election infallibly legitimate, because the adherence of merely the cardinals or the bishops is not the same as the universal adherence of the whole Church.

Therefore, Tradical's basis for disproving sedevacantism is not correct.

_________________"The World Must Conform to Our Lord, and not He to it." Fr. Dennis Fahey C.S.S.P.

Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:12 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: On "Schism" and "Universal Acceptance"

This entire thread is of potential interest in the current environment.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum